LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for METS Archives


METS Archives

METS Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

METS Home

METS Home

METS  February 2004

METS February 2004

Subject:

Re: Question regarding StructMap and StructLink

From:

Jerome McDonough <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Metadata Encoding and Transmission Standard <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 16:09:12 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (123 lines)

I wouldn't recommend trying to use the <structLink> facility
to do what you're trying to do, assuming that I understand it correctly.
It looks to me like you want two different views of the collection
of video files, one of which I would characterize as more-or-less
physical (here are the video segments composing the collection,
in order), and one more-or-less logical (here are the events and
scenes users will want to look at within the collection).

You are on the mark in using two structMaps, although I'd be
tempted to assign a TYPE attribute of "physical" to the first
(I'll concede the attribute value is a debatable point, and not that
important).

However, instead of trying to use <structLink> to associate the logical
structMap with the physical structMap, I'd recommend just creating
a more fully fleshed-out logical structMap.  I can see two possible approaches,
and choosing between them would require knowing more about your particular
assets and their organization.  If a scene always consists of one or more
segments, and the segment boundaries always match scene boundaries
(i.e., you're never going to have a scene which begins or ends in the middle
of a segment), then yes, I would do as you propose, a logical
hierarchy in the second structMap which would go:

Event
      Scene
           Segment(s)
                 <fptr>s

You wouldn't *have* to encode the segments to capture the information.
If you're first structMap indicates that segment1 = file 1 and segment 2 =
file 2,
then reasonably intelligent software (or humans) could look at a second
structMap that says scene 1 = file 1 + file 2 and figure out that scene 1
also equal segment 1 + segment 2.  But adding the segment portion of
the hierarchy in the second structMap spells things out exactly and is
much quicker to process (if you need to know what segments go into a
scene) than pulling the information by inference.

If segment and scene boundaries don't align, I wouldn't bother putting
segment information in the second structMap.  Just put in events and
scenes and relevant links to file information.  Anyone wanting to know
how scenes and segments match up is just going to have to look at
the file pointer information in the two different structMaps and deduce
the relationships.

The <structLink> facility was really intended only as a mechanism to
record hyperlinks between assets that could not be appropriately mapped
into the hierarchical structMap (e.g., archiving web sites in METS).  From
what you've described, it is possible to map your data using only structMaps,
so I'd stay away from using structLink as unnecessary extra work which
doesn't really add information.

At 02:16 PM 2/24/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am trying to use METS to represent a collection of video files. These
>video files are broken up into segments and I am representing this
>information as follows in a StructMap:
>
><METS:structMap TYPE="logical">
>    <METS:div ORDER="1" TYPE="Collection">
>         <METS:div ORDER="1" TYPE="Segment" ID="SEG1">
>         File Pointer Information
>         </METS:div>
>         <METS:div ORDER="2" TYPE="Segment" ID="SEG2">
>         </METS:div>
>         <METS:div ORDER="3" TYPE="Segment" ID="SEG3">
>         </METS:div>
>         <METS:div ORDER="4" TYPE="Segment" ID="SEG4">
>         </METS:div>
>    </METS:div>
></METS:structMap>
>
>Further these segments are combined in no particular order to create
>"Events" (Just a term used for the purpose of my project), which are
>further divided into "Scenes". Every segment need not be part of an
>event. Hence I represent the Event/Scene hierarchy in a different
>StructMap as follows:
>
><METS:structMap TYPE="logical">
>         <METS:div LABEL=" Ruth Stone's Collection " ORDER="1"
>TYPE="Collection" DMDID="DMRS" ID="Coll">
>                 <METS:div LABEL=" Gbarbea Funeral - Event/Themes/Voices
>" ORDER="1" TYPE="Event" ID="Event1">
>                         <METS:div LABEL=" Military Band Escort Body out
>of Monrovia " ORDER="1" TYPE="scene" ID="Scene1">
>                         File Pointer Information
>                         </METS:div>
>                         <METS:div LABEL=" Military Band Escort Body out
>of Monrovia " ORDER="2" TYPE="scene" ID="Scene2">
>                         File Pointer Information
>                         </METS:div>
>                 </METS:div>
>         </METS:div>
></METS:structMap>
>
>So, now to represent what video segments make up an event, I use the
>StructLink area as follows:
>
><METS:structLink>
>         <METS:smLink from="Event1" to="SEG1"/>
>         <METS:smLink from="Event1" to="SEG2"/>
></METS:structLink>
>
>However, with this structure, I am not able to capture the sequence of
>segments that Event1 is composed of. Should this information be captured
>in the StructMap section and not in the StructLink section? To represent
>segments as divisions under events, doesn't seem right since it is not a
>strict hierarchy.
>
>Any feedback is appreciated.
>
>Thank you,
>Prajakta

Jerome McDonough
Digital Library Development Team Leader
Elmer Bobst Library, New York University
70 Washington Square South, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10012
[log in to unmask]
(212) 998-2425

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
January 2023
November 2022
December 2021
November 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
July 2018
June 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
January 2016
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
January 2014
December 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager